Photographing children

In article , Ken Tough
writes
Chris Brown wrote:

Or, to spell it out, your legal system has that premise because it's
descended from a European legal system with the same premise.

Though of course if you where to speak of "european" in the uk sense
(i.e. continental) their civil law is fundamentally different than
english common law. (But you're right).

Ah, the traditional British view of the "continent". One of my favourite
newspaper headlines from a century or so ago is "Heavy Fog in English
Channel - Continent Cut Off".

David
--
David Littlewood

Owamanga wrote:

It is? The last mixer faucet I purchased needed one (optional, and as
I was doing the plumbing, I omitted it). I presumed the reasoning was
due to the design of this faucet. It was one that lets you pull the
head off (it's attached to a hose) which means it is feasible you
could leave it submerged in dirty dish-washing water which could be
siphoned back into the system under certain rare conditions.

One case is the above ground pool with a hose connected to the house
water supply with the faucet open. If the water pressure falls
considerably, the pool is higher than most of the rest of the water
system and the water pushes back into the water system.

I've seen warnings about this problem mode but I can't recall where,
most likely a town brochure. Maybe they wanted people to put device on
the faucet to prevent reverse flow.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:15:56 -0600, "Wayan"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:56:46 -0600, "Wayan"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
Wayan writes:

Of course there is.

Define perverted photography, then.

Both words are simple, short, and in the dictionary. Look them up as I
take
the obvious meaning.

I can look up "timely" and atomic" in the dictionary.
That won't give a definition for "timely atomic", will it?

WHat's being asked for is a definition of "perverted photography."


But in this case, it isn't different:

perverted



adj 1: (used of sexual behavior) showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant
tastes; "kinky sex"; "perverted practices" [syn: kinky] 2: having an
intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed
twisted out of any semblance to reality"; "a perverted translation of the
poem" [syn: distorted, misrepresented, twisted] 3: marked by immorality;
deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved
criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a
gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, immoral, perverse, reprobate]




pho·tog·ra·phy

n.

The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive
surfaces.

The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.

A body of photographs.




For you slow people. combine them to form "taking photographs that are
depraved, perverse, immoral, or reprobate."


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"


"Perverted photography" is not a word. It's a term.
Terms very often meand somethiong different things that the
combination of seperate words means.
As an example using "perverted photography", does this refer to the
photographer's actions, or the results of his actions?
The problem is that"perverted photography" remains undefined.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:


The "public opinion" would heve to be pretty widespread,
especially if the case was toosed out of court on its ass.


It is, in the case of matters relating to sex. Sexual dysfunction is
extremely widespread in many societies, including the very obvious
example of the United States.

Sexual dysfunction is not getting it when you want it, and that is
widespread (pardon the reference) just about everywhere. Grin....


--
Ron Hunter

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:25:03 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

A photograph merely represents patterns of light, darkness, and color.
It has none of those moral/ethical properties. Those can only be
attributed by someone who LOOKS at the picture. In short, those
properties are internal to the observer.

In that case, can "perverted photography" even exist?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Owamanga wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:59:46 GMT, wrote:


On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:03:20 -0700, Big Bill wrote:


On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:34:49 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Owamanga" wrote:

So what if he is? Why does that allow someone
to infringe his rights? *That's* the problem I've
got. (snip)


You're the first person I've ever seen who defines sexual perversion,
especially that involving young children, as a right. As such, I have no
response beyond utter amazement.

There is a right to take photos, even in a public park.
If a pervert is taking pictures there, he has the right to do so until
it's proven he's doing just that.
It's one of those fun things about being innocent until proven guilty.

Keep in mid that this part of the discussion all started when
some lunatic asserted (in all caps) that the photographer was guilty
until proven innocent.


It wasn't a lunatic, you missed his point. He wasn't saying that is
how it should be, or that's how it is legislated. His point was that's
the sad reality. The way that 'suspects' who are otherwise doing
normal day to day stuff get arrested for sex offences, basically, in
the eyes of the general public, his family, his co-workers, his
neighbors, his friends, makes him 'GUILTY'. It's not right, but it is
real.

Take for example this situation in the park. In most countries the
child's identity is protected by law. In the US they also tend to
protect the identity of the parents (under the excuse that it would
lead to the child's identity). The *un-convicted* photographer has no
such protection. He's ****ed as soon as he gets arrested, guilty or
not. The stigma of a sex offence arrest is with him for the rest of
his life, even if it turns out he *is* innocent.

I'm telling you, as a kid, if I'd realized this loophole and been
twice the asshole I am, I could have screwed the life of any teacher
or adult that I didn't like by accusing him of a sex offence. His
eventual acquittal would be irrelevant to how much that would hurt
him.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Believe me, children these days KNOW they have the ultimate weapon, and
they don't hesitate to let people know they know.


--
Ron Hunter

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:15:56 -0600, "Wayan"
wrote:

For you slow people. combine them to form "taking photographs that are
depraved, perverse, immoral, or reprobate."

According to whom?
Someone who says, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"?
How can a photo be depraved, perverse, immoral, or reprobate?
A 'thing' can't be perverse or immoral; it can be reprobate, but only
by people, not by itself.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:15:56 -0600, "Wayan"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:56:46 -0600, "Wayan"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
m...

Wayan writes:


Of course there is.

Define perverted photography, then.

Both words are simple, short, and in the dictionary. Look them up as I

take

the obvious meaning.

I can look up "timely" and atomic" in the dictionary.
That won't give a definition for "timely atomic", will it?

WHat's being asked for is a definition of "perverted photography."


But in this case, it isn't different:

perverted



adj 1: (used of sexual behavior) showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant
tastes; "kinky sex"; "perverted practices" [syn: kinky] 2: having an
intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed
twisted out of any semblance to reality"; "a perverted translation of the
poem" [syn: distorted, misrepresented, twisted] 3: marked by immorality;
deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved
criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a
gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, immoral, perverse, reprobate]




pho·tog·ra·phy

n.

The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive
surfaces.

The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.

A body of photographs.




For you slow people. combine them to form "taking photographs that are
depraved, perverse, immoral, or reprobate."


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"


"Perverted photography" is not a word. It's a term.
Terms very often meand somethiong different things that the
combination of seperate words means.
As an example using "perverted photography", does this refer to the
photographer's actions, or the results of his actions?
The problem is that"perverted photography" remains undefined.


Yeah, but I will know if it if I see it. Sigh...


--
Ron Hunter

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:46:39 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote:
There is a right to take photos, even in a
public park. (snip)


As I said to "Owamanga," please stick to the subject. Nobody is talking
about taking away anyone's supposed "right" to take photographs in general.
Instead, we were talking about whether the specific example, the act of
photographing a young girl's crotch in a public park, falls under the
existing child pornography laws. My comments about photography have not
addressed anything beyond that. Now, one may disagree with the child
pornography laws, but one certainly does not have a "right" to violate them
without consequencies.

Taking photographs of a girl's (clothed) crotch is included in that
right to take photos in a public park.
Child pornography cases still (at least in the US) require some sort
of evidence. A parent's complaint that here's a dirty old man over
there taking pictures of her precious little angel on a swing doesn't
count as evidence.
So, how to eell is a violation is occurring?

Cerrtainly, in the realm of mental exercise, there could be a
violation, but in the realm of reality, how to determine this?
This *is* sticking to the subject, because the subject is
photographing children in a public park, and the *possible* violation
of child pornography laws while doing so.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:30:49 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote:

Feel free to observe what you will of my
comings and goings, and what I do in public.
NO problem. But be prepared for terminal
boredom.



Given enough time, I'm almost willing to bet I could observe you breaking
some law, somewhere. With the number of laws on the books today, it is
almost impossible to go through a day without breaking at least one.

Stewart


Perhaps one you could give me a citation for, not anything else. And
you would get very bored while looking.

That's not the point.
An observer could very easily observe you doing something that
*appears* to be illegal, and start procedings against you that can
easily result in your being arrested, charged, incarcerated, and
forced to defend yourself in court. It's happened. Such innocent
people have even been convicted.
How can you so cavalierly say that you're not concerned, since you
think you have nothing to hide?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"